rosa
Full Member
Starting 5-Founding Member
Posts: 185
|
Post by rosa on Dec 23, 2008 5:20:36 GMT -7
Please define this term: "The American Experiment"
|
|
|
Post by Tim Collins on Dec 23, 2008 5:31:17 GMT -7
Do you want a researched answer or just off the top of the head?
Off the top of the head:
This refers to the question of whether a nation conceived on the premise that government of the people, by the people, and for the people, can survive. ( I am struggling to remember the exact quote)
When the US Constitution was written and through the subsequent early years, probably through the civil war, there was much question as to the viability of a "democracy". Were the people really capable of ruling themselves? This sounds like a silly question today, but remember in the 18th century it was still widely held that the "people" were an unruly bunch, and the only way they could be governed was by a strong hand - IE royalty. The people needed to be controlled by a "government" the US was a test of if the Government could be controlled by the people.
|
|
rosa
Full Member
Starting 5-Founding Member
Posts: 185
|
Post by rosa on Dec 23, 2008 5:34:14 GMT -7
no researched answers just yet, please
just follow what you know, what you've experienced and whatever else you think is pertinent
|
|
|
Post by Tim Collins on Dec 23, 2008 5:41:04 GMT -7
I think the quote I am struggling to remember was from Pres. Lincoln referring to the civil war. He was saying that the war was a test of the survival of the Union and by projection the very "dream" of self-government based upon the will of the governed.
|
|
rosa
Full Member
Starting 5-Founding Member
Posts: 185
|
Post by rosa on Dec 23, 2008 6:12:45 GMT -7
the constitutionality
the "dream"==the viability of the "experiment" itself, or the constitutionality?
haven't gotten to the will of the people yet....I'll get there
|
|
rosa
Full Member
Starting 5-Founding Member
Posts: 185
|
Post by rosa on Dec 23, 2008 6:13:58 GMT -7
I'll apologize in advance for any cryptic responses on my part I'm thinking. And I'm rusty
|
|
|
Post by Tim Collins on Dec 23, 2008 6:59:23 GMT -7
the constitutionality the "dream"==the viability of the "experiment" itself, or the constitutionality? haven't gotten to the will of the people yet....I'll get there The viability of the experiment. Up until the US Constitution and continuing right through modern times; there was serious philosophical and political disagreement as to the ability of a people to govern themselves. The commonly held philosophy was that without an outside force, I.E. a designated ruler (King, Despot, ruling class) humanity would revert to its "natural" state of chaos and serving their individual needs/wants. The view basically was that the common folk could not make decisions for the collective only for their own individual interest. So with the age of enlightenment theories challenging this view, there was the normal doubt of something new, that flew in the face of conventional "wisdom" and experience, could succeed. Thus our system of government was considered an experiment even by its most ardent supporters and authors.
|
|
rosa
Full Member
Starting 5-Founding Member
Posts: 185
|
Post by rosa on Dec 23, 2008 7:04:03 GMT -7
an experiment, governed by the will of the people as per a living document: the constitution
as an aside: did we really get rid of the "ruling class" then?
|
|
|
Post by Tim Collins on Dec 23, 2008 8:31:54 GMT -7
an experiment, governed by the will of the people as per a living document: the constitution
as an aside: did we really get rid of the "ruling class" then? An experiment not so much "Governed by the will of the people" in that the people did not govern the experiment, their governing themselves was the experiment. The experiment was set in motion by a ruling elite if you will, quite a chance to take, but your second question "Did we really get rid of the ruling elite?" addresses their caginess. The founders were 200 years ahead of Ronald Reagan's "trust but verify". If you look close at the document they created and the structure of the government they built you will see how they desired to retain some of their control over the masses. Why a House and a Senate? Initially the Senate was filled with appointees of the individual states - not elected to office. Who controlled the appointments? The ruling class of course. This was a check on the people's will which they believed could go astray as it would be focused on the local picture - not the big picture, nor could they understand the complexities of finance - they had no money or landed interests. Look at how early states restricted voting. Many had minimum land holdings as a requirement or minimum net worth requirements. The founders were more elitist than idealist when you really dig deep. The whole voting structure and Senate (which in theory represented the interests of the individual State, not the voters) while the House was directly elected by the population able to vote (not women, slaves, Indians or poor) There was never really the plan to get rid of the ruling elite - they were not suicidal. Here is a good quick over view of the early voting system www.history.org/Foundation/journal/Spring07/elections.cfm
|
|
rosa
Full Member
Starting 5-Founding Member
Posts: 185
|
Post by rosa on Dec 23, 2008 15:37:09 GMT -7
okay, so we have established the ruling class' intent to hold its status and control, incorporating it into the "experiment"
|
|
|
Post by Tim Collins on Dec 23, 2008 15:48:58 GMT -7
Yes. Understand that the experiment they were launching was fraught with great risk. They feared that the States would remain separate and thus easily conquered by the European powers (Great Britain from Canada, Spain from the south and France from the west). Were this to occur they would no longer have their power or wealth. They also had serious and considered doubts about the vast unwashed populace to rule themselves.
They wanted this experiment to work - honestly felt it was the way to go forward for mankind - but as humans, needed to hedge their bets due to their doubts. What if they were wrong about the common man's ability to rule themselves? They looked to Greece and Rome and saw that direct democracy easily became mob rule, so who better to put the breaks on that result than the elite.
Perfectly understandable concerns given their experience and the age the lived within. The later French Revolution to some degree proved them right.
|
|
rosa
Full Member
Starting 5-Founding Member
Posts: 185
|
Post by rosa on Dec 23, 2008 20:01:19 GMT -7
they had serious and considerable doubts about the vast, unwashed populace's ability to rule themselves
but that was supposed to be the point, or rather, the ideal behind this great "experiment"
okay, amongst the signers of the Declaration of Independence, who were the most "concerned"? Any ideas?
|
|
|
Post by Tim Collins on Dec 23, 2008 20:24:14 GMT -7
I would have to go back and re read some of the stuff - I do not like to get that wrong, but oh well. Sam Adams comes to mind. On the other side would be Ben Franklin and Jefferson; but even they had reservations. Remember they all agreed to the 3/5th compromise.
|
|
rosa
Full Member
Starting 5-Founding Member
Posts: 185
|
Post by rosa on Dec 26, 2008 4:48:53 GMT -7
okay, just so I am clear here: for the elite, the "experiment" was establishing a government for the people, ruled by the people and one which answered to the people...conceived in part with an eye toward keeping a certain piece of control in the hands of the elite from its inception gotta love the irony am I on board?
|
|
|
Post by Tim Collins on Dec 26, 2008 7:49:31 GMT -7
okay, just so I am clear here: for the elite, the "experiment" was establishing a government for the people, ruled by the people and one which answered to the people...conceived in part with an eye toward keeping a certain piece of control in the hands of the elite from its inception
gotta love the ironyam I on board? You're on board, but only if you put it in the perspective of the experience of an 18th century mind. Remember, the people who launched this experiment only knew life under a monarchy, and the history of those that came before them. The history they knew was limited to the science and technology available to them at the time. Capitalism was at the time a newly developing concept in relative terms. "Capital" was replacing land as the basis for status. A middle class and a Merchant class were only just evolving to replace a landed and hereditary class of rulers. Serfdom was not yet extinct in the world they knew. Education was the realm of those with money, not the common man. The "new world" was perhaps (in their minds) the only place such an experiment could work. They saw it as a place far removed (remember it was about a 3 to 4 week sail from Europe) from the rules and easy application of power by the "royals" and wealthy of the old world. This provided some sense of isolation where massive force could not be brought immediately to bear. Another factor was religious or philosophic evolution. The learned class was questioning the established order for class in society. They struggled with how God could have meant for some to be anointed to rule and others to serve. They were seeing contradictions in their religion and their world. Still - they had doubts. They were truly placing a gamble on an idea, an idea for which in their knowledge there was no tangible evidence or precedent. These were thinkers, flying in the face of what their experience said was true. The struggle was large. Look at the compromises made and you will see the spectrum of depth of belief in the experiment's potential for success. The key to understanding how big a leap of faith this experiment really was is to forget everything you know about science, government, daily life etc. that came after 1700 or so.
|
|